So I'm to be Jimmy Olsen, instead of Perry White? (Great Ceaser's ghost!) OK, here is one example for each:

But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.

Psalm 3 line 3 (King James Version)

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:16-17 (King James Version)

For both passages, in the original Hebrew the same second person singular is used. However in the Genesis passage the you is inferred from the verb conjugation, while in the Psalm the word you is used.

"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. Lately it hasn't been working."Anonymous

But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.

Psalm 3 line 3 (King James Version)

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:16-17 (King James Version)

For both passages, in the original Hebrew the same second person singular is used. However in the Genesis passage the you is inferred from the verb conjugation, while in the Psalm the word you is used.

Sorry Perry -didn't mean to demote you but it seemed the only way to work in the 'cub' pun.

From your illuminating Biblebites it seems that both familiar and formal were converted to thou, which begs the question: does the word you ever appear in the (KJ) Bible other than as a plural (i.e did they translate every 2nd person singular into thou)? This would have been early 17th century, ja?

In any case I just love that phrase 'the lifter up of mine head'. Classic.

Perry wrote:I read the linked article and was interested to note that the apostrophe was conspicuous by its absence. I always thought the yall is written y'all to signify the 'missing' ou.

Everyone today seems to include the apostrophe, except linguists who know the rules behind its omission. That is not a dig aimed at linguists, whom I admire; I just want to point out that all the changes we can see today in the etymology of words occurred without the oversight of specialists and were basically what we would, in retrospect, consider improper and unjustified. Speakers will change the language as they see fit (even in France,) regardless of the opinions of folks like us.

Last edited by beck123 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I just read the article you recommended and have to say I've been making the same argument for decades. I wasn't aware of the "amn't" variation, but the use of "... aren't I" has always set my teeth on edge.

I realize this post I've been quoting has cobwebs all over it, but if you're still out there, Perry, this was a good one.

Perry wrote:Also, I would go for writting you'uns instead of yuns, but for a different reason. Two counties over (in Mitchell and Yancy counties) the you of you'ns is fully pronounced.

If this is to be presented as a true contraction that preserves its actual pronunciation, should it not be spelled "you'n's?"

Good point. In a related story over here in the aforementioned counties (and presumably the greater region) lives the interesting 2nd person possessive your'n, (presumably for "your one") which turns out to be older than yours. Except for the missing e being on the end, same deal.

Is an apostrophe needed for every letter substituted, or will we have we made the point that it's a contraction with just one?

The apostrophe represents a gap of missing letters and spaces, regardless of how many consecutive letters it would require to populate the gap. If a phrase has two gaps, the contraction would require two apostrophes, as in your example, "she'll've" (which I've never seen actually written, except maybe in poetry.)

I was going to question the validity of your example, but I'll shelve that for now.

sluggo wrote:Good point. In a related story over here in the aforementioned counties (and presumably the greater region) lives the interesting 2nd person possessive your'n, (presumably for "your one") which turns out to be older than yours.

Well, I just turned 60, so it's possible that your your'n is older than mine.

If that contraction trickles out beyond your region in CA and mine in the SE (where it resides replendent throughout the Southern dialects,) we may have to face one, vast your'n nation.

Seriously, my guess is that it's a parallel construction to my/mine, thy/thine, etc. The "n" sound at the end of pronouns has history in the possessives.